Saturday, January 25, 2014

PYRAMID LAKE PETROGLYPHS MAY BE OLDEST IN NORTH AMERICA:

A recent scientific
investigation of petroglyph boulders on the west side of the Winnemucca Lake
basin in Nevada has yielded hard dates on the age of the petroglyphs.

Paleoclimatologist Larry Benson
(an emeritus scientist with the U.S. Geological
Survey who does research for the University of Colorado and its Museum of
Natural History) had noticed that the
symbols are much whiter than the gray rock they're carved into.

Winnemuca Lake petroglyphs. Photograph: Larry Benson.

Benson needed permission from the Pyramid Lake Paiute
Tribe to sample the rock coating. He did finally get permission to sample the
coating on rocks near the petroglyphs although he has not yet been allowed to
sample any of the ancient rock art. The
whitish coating proved to be Calcium carbonate (CaCO3) and had been deposited
when rising lake water lapped over the lower portions of the petroglyph
boulder.

Winnemuca Lake petroglyphs. Photograph: Larry Benson.

His paper in the Journal
of Archaeological Science, 40 (2013), 4466-76, Dating
North America’s oldest petroglyphs,
Winnemucca Lake Sub-basin, Nevada, by L.V. Benson, E.M. Hattori, J. Southon, and
B. Aleck, outlined the reasoning involved. Benson was aware that Carbonate
crust could not have been deposited in the petroglyphs from the lake water
unless they were actually underwater at some period. This period was determined
using two methods. Laboratory analysis "determined the amount of Calcium carbonate in layers of lake sediment over time. When the amount was close to zero, the lake covered the lower part of the mound below 1206m and the petroglyphs below this level. When the value was relatively large, the lake had fallen below the mound and the petroglyphs and made them accessible for carving." (Benson)Additionally, they detected a fresh-water
plankton (Stephanodiscus hantzschii) found
today in lakes in British Columbia in those layers proving that a large
quantity of fresh water was injected into the lake water. During those periods water level would have been high and the rocks partly covered, thus the carbonate. They also assumed that the petroglyphs were carved during a period when water was low and people could walk to the site. This is, of course, a
very simplified explanation and readers are encouraged to refer to the original
paper for the scientific details. The second method of age determination was to
14C date the carbonate layer itself. Fifteen carbonate samples were
taken near the petroglyphs and were 14C
dated at the University of California-Irvine W.M. Keck Carbon Cycle Accelerator
Mass Spectrometry Laboratory.

Winnemuca Lake petroglyphs. Photograph: Larry Benson.

The results
in Benson’s words were “to provide a minimum age for carving of the low-elevation (1202-1206
m) petroglyphs, we dated the carbonate crust that coats the petroglyphs. The
six carbonate-crust samples from the petroglyph site (WDL12) exhibited an age
range of 10.23-9.77 ka with one outlier at 8.69 ka. As
the sample abrasion process did not always reach the inner (oldest) part of the
carbonate crust, we conclude that initial deposition of the carbonate crust occurred at 10.2 ka and continued
until 9.8 ka, a conjecture consistent with the TIC data discussed in Section 3.5, which indicates that lake level was constrained by overflow at 1207 m until 9.3±0.1
ka. (Benson 2113:4473)

Additionally,
the time frames indicated by the sediment coring supported that by indicating “the TIC records resulting from the two age
models indicate that the base of the petroglyph site was subaerially exposed
between 15.0 and 13.2 ka and was subject to the carving of petroglyphs.
However, the TIC records resulting from the two age models indicate different
times of possible subaerial exposure after 13.2 ka. One age model (Fig. 5A) indicates that the base of site WDL12 was subaerially exposed between
11.3 and 10.5 ka and the other age model (Fig. 5B)
indicates that the base of site WDL12 was subaerially exposed between 11.5 and
11.1 ka.” (Benson 2013:4473) Applying another age
model gave Benson an age range of 11.3 – 10.5 ka. (Benson 2013:4476)

By
combining the date ranges from sediment coring and 14C testing on
the carbonate layer Benson could state “We,
therefore, conclude that the petroglyphs were carved sometime between 14.8 and
10.2 ka.” (Benson 2113:4473)

I
asked Benson some questions based upon my own observations (and lack of
detailed knowledge). First, I could imagine Calcium carbonate molecules
floating around in the lake for hundreds or thousands of years until rising
water brought them to a position to be deposited upon the petroglyph rocks, “wouldn’t that give an excessively ancient
date?” Benson explained that the inrush of fresh water that raised the lake
level to cover the base of the petroglyphs also flushed the bulk of the
preexisting carbonates out of the lake (remember the fresh water plankton
indicating that the brackish water had been greatly diluted and/or displaced.
(personal communication). I also asked about the appearance of sharp edges on
the lines of some of the carvings. “Did
they exhibit any evidence of more recent additions or modifications?” Benson
answered that some of the sharp-edged lines actually showed carbonate
deposition on their surfaces proving that they had not changed since that event
(personal communication). This is seemingly iron-clad, with the results of more
than one type of test providing results that agree like this. Indeed, this is
significant enough that Archaeology
magazine named it one of the Top Ten Discoveries of 2013. (Powell 2014:28)

So, thank you Larry Benson.
Bringing the knowledge of different disciplines to work on rock art questions
can provide surprising benefits. And while I am at it, thank you Archaeology for including a rock art analysis in your Top Ten list for 2013.

NOTE: I am grateful to Larry
Benson for taking the time and effort to correspond with me about this, and for
providing a copy of their paper and photographs for my use, and to illustrate this. If any of the technical details above are incorrect it is entirely due to misunderstanding on my part, not any lack of consideration and generosity on Larry's part.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Pages

"We can be nearly certain that we who look upon the rock art today were not the intended audience. But they have meanings for us non-the-less. Whether that meaning is part of our archaeological studies, a part of national or regional heritage or simply an appreciation of their aesthetic beauty, we are their inheritors and it is up to us to preserve them with care and dignity." D. Russel Micnhimer, 2012.

CONTACT US AT: ARCHEOFARIS@YAHOO.COM, you can make comments, suggest subjects for future postings, or send a photo as an attachment to your e-mail for consideration as a future Pix Pick (submitting your photo is understood to include permission for use). NOTE: The previous e-mail address, rockartblogmail@yahoo.com, was apparently blocked by Yahoo for some unknown reason so I can no longer access it. If you have tried to communicate with me through that address I probably have not received your message.

Search This Blog

About Me

30+ year member of the Colorado Archaeological Society,
Founder and former President of the Colorado Rock Art Association,
Member of the Arapahoe County Cultural Commission, President of Institute for Archeoesthetics.
2013 recipient of the Ivol Hagar Award for outstanding service to the Colorado Archaeological Society, and a 2013 Colorado Rock Art Association Chapter Achievement Award. Member of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Committee and also Programs Committee of History Colorado.
Arapahoe County Cultural Council.